Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SP
Posts
0
Comments
225
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Kyle Hill has some pretty good videos on this topic: https://youtu.be/bmVGwOP_zi8?feature=shared

    My understanding is that while the fallout from Chernobyl wasn't very dangerous, and didn't lead to a noticeable increase in cancer rates, the area around the reactor is still very dangerous due to the debris from the reactor core that's scattered around.

  • No need for personal attacks. Since you won't define it I will:

    The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills (from Oxford Languages)

    I would argue this applies to ChatGPT. ChatGPT exists under the hood as a neutral network, and is clearly capable of acquiring knowledge during training. And ChatGPT is also clearly capable of applying that knowledge in producing answers to questions or novel solutions to problems.

    Based on this definition, I would argue that ChatGPT is intelligent. Whether ChatGPT is sentient or not is a very different question. I would argue not, but again, that depends on the definition of sentience.